Because a conviction of possession of a firearm without an identification card can mean two years in jail, the Ethics Commission determined that Inostroza used his role as a police officer to give an "unwarranted privilege of substantial value" to the councilor's daughter.
But the councilor says she "did the right thing," and has been cleared.
Why is the truth so hard to nail down when dealing with "The Only Ones"?
2 comments:
I totally misread that as
"used his role as a police officer to give himself an "unwarranted privilege of substantial value" to the councilor's daughter."
Which, in a way is kind of funny.
I couldn't help but notice that everyone involved had a Hispanic surname. I don't know if that is relevant, but it is odd. However, I wouldn't have called the police had it been my family, it would have been handled in house.
So it's not too late, they could still give the daughter two years. Why haven't they?
Post a Comment